Would You Bet Your Job On That?

We dig into why teams get stuck even when everyone in the room is capable: adults arrive convinced their view is right, half the group may not care or may not know enough to weigh in, and nobody agrees on what “a good decision” actually means. The result is gridlock, politics, and meetings that burn hours without moving work forward.

We walk through a cleaner approach to organizational decision making that starts before anyone pitches their favorite option: define decision-making criteria up front. What must be true for this to be a good call? How does it support strategy? What does success look like for the whole organization, not just one department? From there we add the missing guardrails: decision rights (are we deciding or recommending?), boundaries like budget and risk limits, and what it takes to justify going outside those boundaries with a real business case.

Then we get blunt about leadership accountability. We talk about the perspective shift that happens when someone asks, “Would you bet your paycheck on it?” and why owning outcomes matters more than defending intentions. Finally, we zoom out to strategic planning and board governance, including why too many strategic initiatives kill execution and how leaders can be evaluated on strategic results while still delivering excellent day-to-day work and building a great place for people to work. 

Transcript

Heat, Humidity, And Slow Systems

Karman 0:30

Good morning, Scott and Tammy. Good morning, Karman.

Scott 0:35

Hello, Karman. How are you this morning?

Tammy 0:37

I'm all warmed up. Sweet. Considering it's like 90 degrees out. Yeah, I would say you're warmed up. A nice hot, humid day.

Karman 0:45

It is. Welcome to Iowa in the summer. Is it humid in Texas, also, Scott?

Scott 0:51

It is humid. It's only 78 though right now. Hold on. I'll tell you the humidity in just a moment.

Karman 0:56

I'll be fine. Ding ding ding ding. All right. Listeners, let's move on. Past the temperature.

Scott 1:03

86%.

Karman 1:05

That is bad. My hair is going flat, just thinking about that much humidity. My friend Sherry likes to say that she likes it when the air kind of holds you up a little bit, you know, like it's so thick and she's crazy. But I'm I'm thinking about this comparison of like a really humid day when you kind of like you feel like you're swimming through the air just to get anywhere. And in organizations where things move really slowly sometimes. And specifically, I'm thinking about the process of group decision making. Tammy just kind of choked a little bit. I think she just threw up in her mouth just a little bit. Hair ball. So my question today is essentially like, why do groups suck so much at decision making in organizations?

Tammy 2:05

Oh, Scott, that is like right down your path.

Scott 2:10

I mean, you know, the easy answer is because they all think they're right. Each individual in the group thinks they're right, and none of them probably are. Because only Scott can be right. Well, and and I mean that just plays out all the time.

Tammy 2:25

He's a Mac

Why Groups Struggle To Decide

Tammy 2:26

Daddy Maverick, so that's what he's gonna believe. Yeah, I mean by the way, I mean, and not to give Scott too much grief or to give him too much grace. Successful adults, their experience tells them that their answer is the right answer, right? I mean, I don't really know an adult who, when they bring an opinion to the table, doesn't believe that that opinion is correct. Okay. Now, if they don't have one, it's like, yeah, I don't know, right? But if you have an opinion, most adults are saying, Well, here's my opinion, and I'm bringing it to the table because I think it makes sense to me, right? So most of us have on things that we have an opinion about, think that we are right, and that makes sense to me. That's just human nature. Now you put a whole bunch of people in a room, some of them don't have any opinion, right? Because they don't know or they don't care, and then there's a group who's on the other side of it, they know and they care, right? So we have a very interesting dynamic that goes on, and let's just say there's six people in that room, and maybe half of them don't care or don't know, and half of them are saying this is the right answer, but that this is the right answer is not aligned.

Scott 3:55

I think they're they have a bastardized view of what a good answer is.

Tammy 4:01

What do you mean by that?

Scott 4:03

So, you know, we say, hey, we're gonna make a decision about the direction we're gonna go for strategy, let's just say. Or we're gonna make a decision about what software we're gonna buy. Hey, we have to buy a new a new CRM or a new EHR or a new, you know, whatever ERP system.

Tammy 4:22

Like, think about these big systems, or even our prioritization, right? What's the most important thing is to get done this year, yeah.

Scott 4:32

For sure. So to me, it's we spend too much time talking about what do I think versus what are the parameters that say this is a good decision? And then am I bouncing my perspective? And it's not saying, hey, squelch your perspective. It's saying I then need to manage my perspective against that definition of good. So if we say, hey, strategically we want to double in the next 10 years, like let's just say that that's the goal of your company, or we want to grow 10% in the next three years, or what, you know, whatever that is. Or even if it's, you know what, we've had so much change, we just want to stabilize. If that is your strategic decision, totally fine. Then all of your decisions are how does it help support that? And it has to be in the interest of the organization, not the interests of you and your department.

Define “Good” Before Debating Options

Scott 5:30

So to me, it's those two things that are battling because whatever role you have, you're always thraddling the fence. Always.

Tammy 5:40

So Scott, one of the things that I love that you just said, and I just need to come back to it. Okay. So hey, we have a big decision to make. Okay. Before we ever even discuss options and alternatives, to build the criteria of what a good decision looks like. And Scott, just last week, you actually sent me an email. Okay. You copied me on an email that you had put together for another organization. And at the bottom of that email was here is the decision-making criteria. It has to fit this, this, this, this, and this. And there was like six items. The last one was, does it align with our mission vision? Right. But there were six criteria. And if you think about this, if we're going to go into group decision making, we traditionally don't spend any time setting what is what does a good decision look like. And yet, if we send out an RFP, people will say, hey, there's a decision. This is how we're going to evaluate it, right? I mean, there's all sorts of places where this is modeled for us. This is the criteria with which we are going to evaluate, fill in the blank. And if we actually started these meetings and said, hey, we're not going to have any conversation until we agree on the criteria. And you agree on the criteria of what a good decision looks like. And then you look at any concepts that are brought to the table, any solutions, and you put them against that. And when you do that, now it's not all the self-interest or it's my idea. It's here's our evaluation criteria. Now, can I game the system by, you know, hey, I know my stuff is going to fit that better than others? Sure, people will game it, but at least you have a set of criteria that the team has already agreed with. Success looks like this. And that's a mistake that people make all over the organizations in all sorts of ways. We don't start with the end in mind. And so we're constantly going in all sorts of ways. If we actually define success first and then take action, we will get there faster, quicker, with less consternation.

Scott 8:11

Yes. I think to me it's that piece, right? I think you have to say what's the decision criteria. It also is a conversation of is this group making the decision or is this group making a recommendation and getting really clear about that? Because sometimes it's, hey, we're making a recommendation and the leadership team has to say yes or no to that. I know it's in when we talk with organizations about the criteria for a good decision. It's also what boundaries.

Decision Rights And Clear Boundaries

Scott 8:40

So to me, criteria, part of the criteria for a good decision, is it within the boundaries of what's allowed for this scenario? Because it might be, oh, yes, we can we can get new software, but it can't cost more than $5,000 a month. Well, if I want the $10,000 version, it's outside the bounds. And the answer in general should be no, unless you can prove that you're gonna make up the difference by, you know, oh, hey, this will save us this much time, effort, energy, money, or do whatever. And I can offset that cost. My experience is I don't know any leader that if you come to them and say, I know you told me I can only spend $10,000, this is gonna cost $15, and it's gonna give us these three things. If you can prove that, I don't know any leader that, unless you're in a dire situation for money, is not gonna say yes to that. Now, you also have to know if you're gonna go to the wealth to say I'm gonna go outside the bounds, you better deliver. When I watch organizations allow people to go to do that and then not deliver, or hey, I promised it was gonna get us, you know, 25% more, you know, faster and it got two percent faster. Yeah, sorry, no.

Tammy 9:58

I had a I had a boss that actually came to me because I brought something to the table and he said, Can you guarantee it?

Scott 10:06

Yeah.

Tammy 10:07

And I was like, What do you mean? And he was like, Would you bet your paycheck on it? Because that's what you're asking me to do. Okay. And if you bet your paycheck, what you're really saying to me is you're betting your job. So when you are asking to go outside the boundaries that I gave you for a solution, okay, I'm okay with that. And you're bringing me a solution that's outside the boundaries, and I'm now asking you, will you put your job on the line for this solution? And when you actually ask someone that question, okay, you see the answer to that question differently, right? You are now saying, huh, I'm putting myself at risk. You know, I just thought this was the right decision. Now I'm putting myself at risk. Well, please know that's what the executives of your organization they do every single day. All those like big decisions, financial decisions that they're making, they're betting their job on that.

Scott 11:04

Yeah.

Tammy 11:04

Most of us in the middle or the you know, the front line of the organization don't think about it that way. But maybe we should. Okay. This is what you're recommending.

Scott 11:14

I'm laughing because I can think one time in my career

Accountability And Betting Your Paycheck

Scott 11:19

where we interviewed someone's brother, and I wasn't a nice guy. I was not sold that he was gonna be the right fit. And this person who who I knew, I trusted, had worked with me for a while, said, you know, he's he's good, he just interviews a little weird. Like, I bet my job on it. Like, he's gonna be okay. Now he came and he did a decent job, not great, but did get to the point where he was gonna have to quit or be fired. And he he ended up quitting. And this person came to me with letter of resignation in hand. Wow, and said, I know I this is what I said, I am prepared to leave. Now I didn't like I didn't accept it. I said no. Now he just retired from that company, yeah, you know, a year and a half ago. And you know, to me, he that was an immense amount of integrity. Huge, huge, right? That he would, yeah, he was ready to like, yeah. I I said that he would be able to do this, and he didn't.

Tammy 12:27

You know, I I actually I've never ever said this out loud before. It's not something that I have in my wheelhouse of skill sets, but this idea of asking someone, are you willing to bet your job on this? Yeah, it changes your perspective of what you're willing to bring to the table. Okay. And it's like, you know, this is a risk that the organization is gonna make. I want to know how how aligned you are with this. Are you going to take responsibility for saying, yeah, this is the right call?

Scott 13:09

Yeah.

Tammy 13:10

And it allows us to recognize the criticalness of some of these decisions that people are bringing to the table. And maybe that is something we should start asking.

Scott 13:23

Whether it's would you bet your job on it? To me, I think that's one way. I think it's the uh the other pieces I would not expect someone to quit their job. No, I wouldn't right unless you make a continued bad decisions, like that's a different conversation. It's also an element of you have to then say, you know, I I think of the no rules rules book, the Netflix story. Yep. Great, you have a lot of responsibility, you make the call, and if it crashes and burns, please understand you have to own it. And I watch people make these decisions, make these promises, and then say, Well, yeah, it didn't get the outcome we wanted. And then they list all these 30 reasons why we were working. No, sorry, that's an excuse. And then you think you should your performance is high and she should get a performance bonus. No, we just spent a million dollars, and you said we were gonna get a return, and it's actually cost us two million, and we've gotten no outcome, and that's good performance. Yeah, no.

Tammy 14:27

The piece about that that I like, Scott, which is what I think you're trying to say, is if someone came and said, Hey, yeah, I think this is the right decision, and I'm gonna bet my job. And you know, all of the things indicated that it was the right decision. We looked at it, it's like, okay, so we took the risk. That person bet their job, and the organization agreed. And then we went and did that. And at the end of it, it didn't work. And that person came back and said, I was my screw up, you know, this is it's what I thought, and they took responsibility, and there is a learning lesson there. Do you know? We did just pay for the education, and they they became accountable and responsible. And you're right, I probably wouldn't accept the resignation. But a person who says, I'm gonna bet my job on it, and then has all the excuses in the world. I actually think maybe they shouldn't be there anymore and they bet their job on it, and it's time for them to like not be here. They they actually didn't in that spot make a good decision, and isn't that what we're looking for inside of organizations? People who are making good decisions on a daily basis.

Scott 15:45

No, or right, there's gonna be times where we we botch one, we trip on one, we do whatever. But if we learn from it, and did you own it? Yeah, I mean, I'm thinking of a couple clients right now that I've watched them make decisions and invest money and have repeatedly either not delivered, it was delayed,

Boards, Strategy, And Real Governance

Scott 16:05

or it created chaos, and they take no responsibility. Now, are they doing good work in their day-to-day job? Generally, I think they are. So, would I fire them? No, probably not. Would I hold them accountable? Yes. If they came to me with the next thing, my answer is probably no.

Tammy 16:25

Well, I remember an organization. Now, this is years ago, Scott, that you started working with and you were doing their strategic planning, and they had 17 strategic initiatives, and you were talking with them, and they were like, Yeah, we had a great year. And you were like, Really? And they were like, Yeah. Well, the way I see it is that you did not achieve 16 of your 17 strategic initiatives, and they were like, Yeah, but and you were like, Hey, if you're gonna continue to level up the organization, you can't just like pretend that you had a great year when uh 16 out of 17 things didn't get done, and you actually work with that organization and help them say, we don't have to have 17, we can have seven, but we need to have those seven things completed. And that's when the organization started to actually grow, they got their daily work done, right, which was important, and then they got a small set of strategic initiatives done to help them level up at the same time in that spot, right? I would tell you if I was a board member and year after year you said I'm gonna do 17 things, and you got one of the 17 things done, I would start to not believe you. I would say that you were misleading me.

Scott 17:47

So, how many boards actually look at completion of strategic plan? Well, I mean, let's just so yeah, it's presented. And I don't know many that do. And what is a board's responsibility, Scott? Well, last time I checked, assuming it's a governance board, they're supposed to govern, right?

Tammy 18:06

So, therefore, they are also not living up to their expectations, so they're not holding the CEO accountable. And I will tell you, we have a client right now, and one of the things that he did is he went the CEO went to the board and said, I would like to have my performance. Let's go back to this. Hey, how do we define success? I want my performance to be evaluated on whether or not we hit our strategic goals. And I remember saying, Hey, I don't think that's a good idea. And he was like, Why? And I said, Because most organizations don't hit their strategic goals, and you could be setting yourself up for failure. And he looked at me and goes, Yes. And my job is actually to take this organization into the future. And yes, it's a risk, but it's the right thing to do. And I remember being so convicted because I was like worried about him, and he was like saying, This is my job. I was so proud of him at that moment, and that is what now the organization, his board, evaluates him every year on the strategic initiatives, which truly means that what they choose to do becomes critically important. And this particular CEO has a tremendous amount of integrity. He doesn't take the easy road, he is still continuing to push his organization in places that most people would be like, well, don't go too far because I'm going to be evaluated on that. Mm-mm. He still has a tremendous amount of integrity in that and is pushing the organization. And I do think board should hold CEOs accountable to strategic initiatives as well as goals of the daily work, right? Those two things. We have to get what we do on a daily basis done well with quality, and we have to level up the organization. That's the strategic goals. To me, those two things make sense, right? Then there's a people part of it. So I actually think there are three things. Is it a great place for people to work and come to? That is the CEO's responsibility. Are we getting the day to day work done? CEO's responsibility, and are we leveling up the organization? Those three categories. But by the way, that's performance management for everybody in the organization. Those three things, right? People getting results, leveling up.